I went through the calculator to figure what my costs would be if I still worked my old crappy job making $25k a year. On that job I paid roughly $100 every two weeks for a Bronze plan. Most of my co-workers (much younger than I) went without it because of the expense.
Assuming they dropped coverage altogether, it would have worked in my favor, as according to the calculator, after subsidies I could get a Bronze plan for $29.42 every two weeks. I’m willing to bet most of my former co-workers would change their mind about coverage at that rate. (Most especially given any ‘penalties’ for non-participation.)
As pointed before, there is a human element of this that does continue to escape adaher, As it is also a denial that a good number of well to do see the injustice that currently we have on health care access and are willing to pay more to ensure others will get lifesaving help, to help others worry less about going bankrupt for health reasons, and to give also more freedoms to people with job lock.
Once again, it is just a basic argument, IIRC the point was made that by providing incentives for most people to carry health insurance, it will spread health care costs across a wider base, including many relatively healthy people, thereby reducing premiums for everyone. That it will not be the case for a few is likely, but so far it is looking at being a result of the delaying and refusal of several states to implement the law.
If one does trust the capabilities of private enterprise we are bound to see more progress on the costs being controlled thanks to competition, but many big inefficient groups (that by “coincidence” are located in most of the states that oppose the ACA) are in reality pushing politicians on the right to prevent that competition from arriving to their states.
As pointed before the “truth” you are talking about is not in the cards for the majority of the ones that the law will include.
Many republicans seem to claim nowadays that all those lies told before by the Republicans and Tea partiers were ok, not so when the result of swallowing them will **increase **the costs in their states for not implementing the law, and making sure many do continue to suffer for lack of access.
It doesn’t justify the lies. However, blaming Republican lies and intransigence for the unpopularity and failure of the law is also nonsense, and a lie itself if we assume the Democrats know better. Which they probably don’t.
Besides, some of those “lies” have turned out to be true. there should be a price to pay for calling predictions of the future “lies” just because they disagree with what your cherry-picked experts projected. But frankly, we’ve seen this movie a couple of times before. Democrats promise huge benefits and low costs, then when the bill comes due the question is moot anyway because too many Americans have become dependent on the program. Democrats are counting on that to happen again, and then the used car salesman job they did to sell it won’t matter.
Nonsense, starting with the death panels and the reasons put for defunding the ACA on dozens of votes in the Republican House.
There is no evidence for what you claim here.
Again, as Families USA reported:
Comparing the ones that are going to implement a plan that will help all that people to car salesmen is, besides not being logical, insulting; The lies from the Republicans in congress demonstrate something else besides someone being shifty for a sale, it is showing their inhumanity.
The evidence for my claim is the shifting statements from Democratic leaders. “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” that’s been backed away from. Pelosi recently said, “I never said that rates would be lower for everyone.” Yet she did.
And your last statement is just a defense of lying. The ends justify the means.
Missing the point, once again I would not consider that a falsehood when the system set up actually makes the majority to see what was promised, what is more, it is logical to report it that way as the structure of the plan leads to that, but most of the problems once again are the results of obstructionism and the fact that it could be better, but it was the best that we could get so far.
The point I made stands. The lies from the Republicans in congress demonstrate something else besides someone being shifty for a sale, it is showing their inhumanity.
No evidence for that, and just by observation, Old relatives of mine do get very good treatment with Medicare, my workplace does not offer any health care but I will be able to finally get help once the exchanges open.
So, still, the lies from the Republicans in congress demonstrate something else besides someone being shifty for a sale, it is showing their inhumanity.
And we, the affected and the ones that will see the benefits do vote.
Actually, we’ve discussed the studies showing that Medicaid patients do no better than patients without insurance before. I believe you had competing cites showing something different, but it was all peer reviewed so at best it’s uncertain whether Medicaid patients are actually getting a benefit as far as health outcomes.
As for who votes how, I’m middle income and if my company drops our insurance I’ll be paying more on the exchanges even with the subsidies. That would go for everyone in my company who makes what I make or more.
Even crappy service gets the patient going, and no I have seen the good care many retired relatives get. You are indeed claiming that “no service” is the same. The sources I checked and my experience and the ones from the poor people I see in the community by one school I work tells me that you are indeed just pushing an ignorant point.
Iffinitis Aguda to make your point, get a good doctor for that argument.
No insurance means you still have emergency room access. Medicaid has to do better than that, and by everything I’ve seen, it does not. Ever seen a lobby at a doctors’ office where they take Medicaid?
It is not the same at all, you continue to be wrong and you are only repeating the FUD from the opponents of the plan.
Patient dumping, sending uninsured patients to “better facilities” and denying service to uninsured right away are still happening. (It should not happen, but a relative described how at a local hospital the first thing that was shown to him was the forms were you give them permission to harass you forever for payment, so he decided to ignore a very painful sore throat, he was lucky that indeed it was not as dangerous as he thought.)
Neither one that takes uninsured patients. But, in the case of my old relatives they go see a doctor at his medical group office.
I recognize that Medicaid in theory should be better and might even be better health care delivery than having no insurance. But it’s not so much better that it indisputably improves health outcomes.
For an investment costing in the hundreds of billions of dollars, don’t the taxpayers deserve evidence that it actually accomplishes something?